Skip to playerSkip to main content
  • 8 months ago
During the Oral Arguments for 'Diamond International, LLC v. EPA', Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh questioned an attorney about the effect of California EPA standards on the markets.

Category

🗞
News
Transcript
00:00Thank you, counsel. Justice Thomas, anything further? Justice Kagan? Justice Kagan? Justice Kavanaugh?
00:09I'm not sure there's a huge amount of difference between the rule and the backup position.
00:16I mean, the rule is based on the common sense predictable effects in a particular context,
00:22but either way you go, you get to the same destination. I guess I'm not seeing a huge gap.
00:28I agree, Justice Kavanaugh, we should win no matter what the court says, but I do think that a case like this,
00:39it's not that there should be daylight in the right outcomes, it's that once we make it about evidence,
00:47we're going to have to come in every case and there's going to be a debate, like,
00:50well, what do you have to show to trigger a common sense inference, and how common is that common sense?
00:54Well, what we said last year in FDA versus Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine,
01:00just summarizing the standing law should be, kind of gets at it, doesn't it?
01:06I would have thought so too, Justice Kavanaugh, but here we are.
01:08But look, I'll be the first to grant that if you take that paragraph in Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine
01:12and you say, look, even if we're not going to call it a rule, there are certain categories where we've said
01:17the effects seem awfully predictable, and this falls into one of the categories,
01:21that starts to look pretty much like a rule to me, but I'll grant that if that's language
01:25that the court thinks squares more comfortably with its standing precedents in general,
01:30it gets us to the, it should get us to the same place.
01:33Justice Kavanaugh.
Be the first to comment
Add your comment

Recommended